Tuesday, 7 January 2014

DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution

Scientific
evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is
common knowledge
among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome,
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and
academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it –
deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and
their obvious implications.

This
article was inspired by a comment made recently by Australian historian Greg
Jefferys. So before continuing a scientific assessment of DNA evidence, I will
first open this discussion by outlining Greg Jefferys’ comments.

The
whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in
the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my
degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by
genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it.

It
did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both
the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother
– given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum,
were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann.

In
their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not
in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was
an assumption, never an assertion. In their seminal paper The Recent
African Genesis of Humans, they even stipulated “that all humans today can
be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200,000
years ago, probably in Africa.”

So
how is it that their “probably” has morphed into our collective “definitely”?

Over
time, even the two researchers came to discover that the research of Original
Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Both separately conducted further
tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Original
people, arriving at the same conclusion, both recanted their previous
assumptions by acknowledging that Homo
sapien sapiens originated in Australia.

Professor
Alan Wilson came to Australia in 1987 and 1989 to personally supervise the
collection of Original blood from a variety of locations throughout Australia.
With a mutation rate of 70% from the samples analysed, which is manifestly
higher than any other race, Wilson was compelled to admit that:

…
it seems too far out to admit, but while Homo erectus was muddling along
in the rest of the world, a few erectus had got to Australia and did
something dramatically different – not even with stone tools – but it is here
that Homo sapiens emerged and evolved.

Rebecca
Cann was more expansive and specific in declaring that the Original
“Mitochondrial DNA puts the origin of Homo
Sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian
Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far earlier than
any other racial group.” The notions of a “far earlier” time frame when
estimating when, and the
existence of “two lineages” in Australia when grappling with who, are constant themes that can be
found within many other reports investigating the make up of the genes and
chromosomes of Homo sapien sapiens.

The
very recent mapping of the Original Genome only reinforces the stance taken by
both Cann and Wilson twenty years earlier, and highlights the inconsistencies
and illogicality of any and every Out-of-Africa theory. A Danish genetic
research team, led by Dr. Eske Willerslev, found that Original people came
into existence at least 70,000 years ago, 40,000 years before both the European
and Asian race first appeared. They assumed that because Africans made their
way across the entire Asian continent and never stopped or settled, and
remained in transit until reaching Australia “some 50,000 years ago.” Once
ensconced in this foreign land where they managed to keep “the whole continent
to themselves without admitting any outsiders”, their genes should be very
African.

The
problem being, as they openly admit, such a premise is “based on a mixture of
statistics and best guesses”, and more importantly as Wilson and Cann came to
realise, “we really can’t put geography in there.” Granted, they did concede
that “the Aborigine occupation of Australia presents a series of puzzles” and
especially so in relation to “the nature of their stone tools found in
Australia” which “are much simpler than the Upper Paleolithic tools… at the
same era.” Professor Richard Klien (Paleoanthropologist Stanford University)
highlighted the contradictory nature of the stone tool technology in Australia
when observing that “I don’t understand why they looked so primitive.”

Basically
this means that the people who invented and sailed the first boat capable of
carrying many people over 100 kilometres of open sea, regressed markedly in
technology once arriving on these new shores. Or perhaps in ancient days until
quite recent times, no-one ever sailed to, but from, Australia, which would
explain why the Original technology was so unlike anything outside their home
base.

Noted
by Dr. Savolainen from the Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm, even the arrival of the only dog to reach Australia until the
British invasion is an “enigma”.

I
would humbly suggest that proclaiming any genetic absolutes, when dealing with
Australian history, is risky business and best left to the Original Elders.

What
only complicates the convenient versions of history is the totally unexpected
addition to the ever-expanding hominid family: the Denisovans.
Just after the release of a paper on the mapping of the Original Genome from a
piece of hair collected 100 years ago, the first news of a new species of
hominid – called the Denisovans – reached the public arena. All evidence found
– especially in relation to the mtDNA extracted from the little finger of a
Denisovan woman believed to be 80,000 years old – widens the geographic
boundaries and time-scales of this recurring “enigma”. First and foremost, the
resulting mtDNA of this sub-species of modern humans was compared against every
race and tribe on the planet, and the closest genetic match was, as we would have
predicted, the Australian Original people.

Thirty
thousand years before the first Africans supposedly entered Australia,
Original, not African, genes turn up in Siberia. The real issue at stake is
that the Denosovans are considered a lesser species of early human, placed
somewhere below Neanderthals, while the Original people, according to every
model, are fully Homo sapien sapiens.
So how is it possible that this regression took place? And did so, so far from
home?

Some
commentators proposed that this contact was not due to Original people sailing
from Australia, but the Denisovans sailing to Australia. But alas, to for the
Denisovans to have done so is in opposition to every accredited theory on the
rise of Homo sapien sapiens,
where they alone mastered the art of sailing to other continents in numbers
large enough to genetically sustain their founding populations. Apparently, the
Denisovans, who are well down the Hominid tree, were able to communicate,
construct a boat of sizeable proportions, and navigate a successful voyage of
thousands of kilometers on the open seas. This hypothesis just doesn’t
make sense. What does sound more logical was that Homo sapiens were actually sailing from Australia and
bestowing wisdom, culture and genes, with the Denisovans gratefully receiving
all of these gifts.

Now
the plot thickens and unravels.

An
article in the New York Times on 4th December 2013 lays claim to a “baffling
400,000 year old clue to human origins”. On this occasion, humanity’s indirect
ancestry was traced back to Spain during pre-Homo
sapien sapiens times, and once again Denisovan genes are at play.
So it appears the same hominid who is most closely linked to the Original genes
of Australia was wandering around the Spanish countryside some 400,000 years
ago, well before any African Homo sapien
could be claimed to have stepped in, on or outside African soil.

“Scientists
have found the oldest DNA evidence yet of humans’ biological history. But
instead of neatly clarifying human evolution, the finding is adding new
mysteries”. The femur bone found in cave was analysed by Dr. Matthias Meyer
(geneticist Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology). When Meyer and his
colleagues “drilled into the femur, they found ancient human DNA inside, just
as they hoped”.

But
past this point, nothing went according to their script. Much to their
surprise, the DNA they recovered – the oldest yet by over 100,000 years – “most
closely resembles DNA from an enigmatic lineage of humans known as Denisovans”,
originally thought to be 80,000 years old and confined to the Northern Asian
region. This finding was the cause of great consternation. “Everyone had a hard
time believing it at first” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data
to nail it down”. Not surprisingly, their further research only confirmed the
original results.

As
was the case with the Genome studies of Original hair, “the new finding is hard
to reconcile with the [accepted] picture of human evolution”. None of what they
found fits into any traditional version of human ascension, and according to
Dr. Luis Asauaga (Paleoanthropologist, Universdad Complutense de Madrid) this
discovery demands that “we have to rethink the whole story”.

And
that last statement by Dr. Asauaga really sums up the case for the entire
Out-of-Africa theory: it is a “story”, it was never a fact. From the very
beginning it was always a “probably” at best. But this is only one half of the
story… all of the evidence we have presented relates to women’s side of the
genetic pool, and until the male’s Y-Chromosome is factored into this ancient
narrative, any “rethink” of the “whole story” is incomplete.

What
really does reinforce Greg Jeffreys’ contention that the genetic evidence is in
stark contradiction to any Out-of-Africa theory, is that time after time the
many Y-Chromosome papers released over the last decade stand united in their
denial of any African input. And this is by no means a recent occurrence, as
evidenced by a paper released in 1999 by Australian researchers Vandenburg and
colleagues. As it was with other studies, the results were as inconvenient as
they were unexpected. Vandenburg found that “Australian Y-chromosome diversity
is surprisingly limited”. In contrast with the Genome researchers’ assumption
that Australian was literally sealed off genetically until their land was
stolen in 1788, Vandenburg made note of “two haplotypes unique to Australian
Aboriginals”. But if indeed Africans sailed to Australia and were immediately
isolated genetically, this just should not happen – every Original haplotype
should have close to an identical African match.

Further
information added to the African inconsistencies, while also reinforcing
an observation offered by Rebecca Cann in relation to mtDNA evidence that
suggested the first Original Homo
sapien sapiens were sourced from “two lineages”. The results
gathered “were compared with other worldwide populations” which “produced 41
unique haplotypes”. Instead of an even spread amongst so many haplotypes, in Australia
a far more intense clustering was present in that “most (78%) of Australian
haplotypes fell into two clusters, possibly indicating two original, separate
lineages of Aboriginal Australians”. To that end, since at least two Original
haplotype groups have no African counter-part, there can be no African
involvement, mtDNA or Y-chromosomes in either of the “two lineages”.

Central
to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence
of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic
involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that:

“the
finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African”
haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as
well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82,
M23, M114, P262 …”

There
are 11 more entries in this list of non-starters, all missing from both
Europeoids and “all non-African groups,” which obviously includes the Original
Australians. With the Original people exhibiting an intense clustering into two
groups, haplogroups not present in any African genes and an absence of dozens
of African genetic markers, it is very difficult nigh on impossible to sustain
any link between Africa and Australia.

The
researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to
re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”. They see no genetic
proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible
interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans
descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a
proverbial fork”.

We
regard the claim of “a more plausible explanation” as a gross understatement,
since there is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test
tubes. In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating
“not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the
Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup
A”.

The
only remaining uncertainty relates to the identity of this “more ancient
common ancestor”. All that can be stated with confidence is that humanity’s
ancestor did not reside in Africa, but “probably” Australia.

When
an Original Elder of high standing recently declared that “all peoples of the world come from us”,
it seems he had a large body of genetic science standing beside him.

About the
author:

Steven
Strong is an Australian-based researcher, author and former high
school teacher with a background in archaeology. He was involved in the
formation of a Graduate Diploma of Aboriginal Education for the NSW Department
of Education, writing units on Traditional Law and Contemporary History. He
also co-authored the highly successful “Aboriginal Australia: A Language and
Cultural kit”.

Steve
has written over a dozen articles on Original history and lore for the National
Indigenous Times, with four articles appearing in New Dawn magazine. With close to 30
years of contact with original Gumilaroi people and tribes of the Bundjalung
Language Confederation, and the benefit of extensive consultation with
many Original Elders, Steve’s work is to reveal the story of the Original
people, a narrative that was almost lost to aggressive European colonisation.

Humans dated ancient Denisovan
relatives beyond the Wallace Line

Ancient
humans known as Denisovans only interbred with modern humans after they both crossed a severe
marine barrier in Indonesia, say researchers.

This may explain why DNA
from these ancient humans is only found in people from some parts of Southeast
Asia, Papua New Guinea and in Australian Aborigines, argue Professor Alan
Cooper, from the University
of South Australia, and Professor Chris Stringer, from the Natural History Museum in
London.

Evidence of the
now-extinct human relative was first found in a Siberian cave three years ago.
Since then, genetic studies have revealed they interbred with modern humans.

But while traces of
Denisovan DNA have been found in Southeast Asia, they have not been found in
mainland Asian populations, which is closer to where the original fossils were
found.

"It has been a bit a
mystery," says Cooper.

While some have argued
this can be explained by the 'swamping' of the Denisovan genetic signature by
DNA from modern humans that followed Denisovans into mainland Asia, Cooper
argues against this.

First, he says, surveys
of indigenous negrito hunter gatherers in Asia, show no evidence of Denisovan
DNA. This is despite some of these people having had no contact with other
groups that could have 'swamped' the Denisovan genetic signature.

Second, says Cooper,
ancient human remains found in China last year also contained no Denisovan DNA.

"In mainland Asia,
neither ancient human specimens, nor geographically isolated modern Indigenous
populations have Denisovan DNA of any note, indicating that there has never
been a genetic signal of Denisovan interbreeding in the area," he says.

East of the
Wallace Line

The only place where a
Denisovan genetic signal exists appears to be east of the Wallace Line -- which runs between Bali and
Lombok and up the east coast of Borneo -- the researchers argue in the journal Science.

This marine strait has
never been bridged by land and is hard to cross, which is why the fauna on one
side is so different to that on the other.

"On one side you
have all your tigers and rhinos and monkeys and on the other you have all your
marsupials, giant lizards and Australia," says Cooper. "This is the
probably one of the world's most famous biogeographic lines."

"We think Denisovans
crossed it and that the humans interbred with them after crossing it
themelves," he says.

Cooper says only a
relatively small number of humans would have been able to cross the Wallace
Line.

He says they would have
then met a larger population of Denisovans who had been established there
beforehand.

Cooper says small
populations tend to outbreed - just as the relatively small group of modern
humans coming out of Africa interbred just once with the Neanderthals they met.

In addition, he says, in
a small population, any genetic signal carried forward to future generations
would be quite strong, because there is little else to swamp the signal.

All this explains why
Denisovan DNA is only picked up in humans east of the Wallace line, says
Cooper.

Denisovan
capabilities

The findings have
implications for our understanding of the technological ability of Denisovans.

"Knowing that the
Denisovans spread beyond this significant sea barrier opens up all sorts of
questions about the behaviours and capabilities of this group, and how far they
could have spread," says Cooper.

Interestingly, he adds,
analysis of gene flow shows that it occurred as a result of male Denisovans
breeding with modern human females.

The findings also mean
that the diversity of archaic human relatives in the area was much higher than
previously thought - with Denisovans joining hobbits as another unexpected
relative living east of the Wallace Line at the same time as modern humans.

Who were the Denisovans?*In 2010,
scientists discovered a finger bone found in a cave in Siberia belonged to a
new group of ancient humans they called Denisovan (after the cave in which it
was discovered).*Although they are related to Neanderthals, Denisovans are
genetically distinct from both Neanderthals and modern humans.*The fossil was from a young girl who lived around 41,000
years ago.*Recent genetic studies show Denisovans had dark skin,
brown hair and brown eyes.*A large population ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia.*They interbred with modern humans, but traces of
Denisovan DNA are only found in Indigenous people in some parts of Southeast
Asia, Papua New Guinea and in Australian Aborigines.

We provide a live link to your original material on your site - which
raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site
is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article
or other item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit
use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work &
author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along
with this or a similar notice).

Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. template. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.